Gay foster parents abused young boys

Discussion in 'The Gash Barge' started by trehorn, Sep 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This is sure to prompt some heated discussion.

    A council was condemned yesterday for failing to prevent a paedophile homosexual couple from abusing young boys even after being alerted by one of the victim's parents.

    Foster parents Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32, face long terms in jail after being convicted of molesting and filming eight-year-old twins and two boys aged 14.

    The twins were video-taped as they showered together, while one of the older boys was sexually abused by Wathey in his bedroom.

    Both men "hurt" him, he told Leeds Crown Court. "I do not like them any more. I want them to go to prison."

    Yesterday it emerged that Wakefield council had been warned of possible abuse by the twins' mother, Mrs X.

    She had found bathroom photographs of her sons but an inquiry by social workers cleared the paedophiles of wrongdoing and said they had simply been "naive and silly". Police were not called in. Wathey and Faunch had moved on to abusing the two 14-year-olds by the time police arrested them in Pontefract, West Yorks.

    The two men began abusing boys within a month of Wakefield social services approving them as foster carers in July 2003.

    Outside the court, Mrs X said: "I thought the council would have contacted the police as part of the investigation. . . Maybe if something had been done sooner we would not be here today."

    Kitty Ferris, for the council, said applications by the men to become foster carers had been approved "in accordance with statutory requirements and council policy".

    She added: "Although correct procedures were carried out at every stage the service has reviewed its internal procedures to identify what lessons should be learned."

    Both men were told they faced substantial jail terms and sentencing was adjourned.
  2. This pair of scum were jailed in June this years for 5 and 6 years respectively.

    What they did was unbelievable and deserved to be punished far more severely than what was handed down. For me it matters not whether the paedophiles are gay or straight, the abuse of children should carry a life sentence that should mean life (IMHO).
  3. Not "THIS" subject again :(
  4. Quite, as I stated they were jailed in June. I guess the Telegraph article has been published to coincide with the independent review into what went wrong.
    I still say the sentences were too lenient though.
  5. Well it was probably inevitable, but in my opinion makes no real change to whether or not gays are suitable people to become foster parents. Rather it proves they are just as likely to abuse children as apparently hetreo couples.

    Agree with the comment that the sentences were light.
  6. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    T42S wrote
    They were jailed in June 2006 Current? I think not.
  7. Damn my feeble brain.......I am still thinking like it's 2006 not 2007. The worst thing about that is that it means I'm actually a year older than I thought I was........
  8. I think that e are getting knickers twisted for all the wrong reasons. The problem was not that the foster parents were gay but because of political correctness the social workers ignored what was happenning.
    Political correctness is wrecking or rather has wrecked the country.
    If there is a problem it needs to be tackled no matter if the perpetrators are, black, white, straight, gay, Muslim, Christian, fat, thin, priests, doctors or whatever
  9. Here, here. I have to say enough of this namby- pamby attitude, if there is a problem tackle it head on.
  10. You missed GINGER! :dwarf:
  11. Sorry chaps, didnt realise this had already been done. I saw it on the local news and was absolutely disgusted that people daren't challenge them because they were gay!
  12. If you had bothered to read the 1st post Seadog you would have seen it was current.
  13. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    mikh wrote
    How so? From the linkless first post

    They were jailed in June 2006, so the first article predates their jailing. Look at T42S's link

    June 2006

    Trehorn posted a 15 month old news story. There has been an investigation into how the Council came to look the other way, recently completed but that has yet to be mentioned in this thread, unless thats what trehorn refers to in his/her later post.
  14. ooopppsss, sorry dog, (thats twice today) I should have read it all myself.
  15. In one of the other forums someone said they hated being called 'love' or 'darling', well my absolute hate in saying is

    to identify what lessons should be learned.

    It means they will do nothing just like they have in the past. except maybe hand out promotions.
  16. On this topic, does immediate currency matter? We know that hetro couples can sod an offspring's life up (remember, go West young woman). This will happen.

    The salient point is, should homosexuals be wards of children? I suggest not. What sort of insight to conventional normality (tautology intended) does that convey?
  17. Mmm! To define 'conventional normality' whatever that is, could be a long and involved thread.
    Whose convention and what normality would be my question.
  18. IMHO, I think the salient point was, should paedophiles be wards of children? Of course not but as no magic test for kiddy fiddlers yet exists, we have to act retrospectively.
    Gay, straight, lesbian or transgendered should not matter, no group is more or less likely to abuse children. Judge Cahill noted in her summing up , "You are presented as a couple but this is not about homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust."
    Children are usually molested by someone that already knows them, sexuality of the offender is not a factor either way, abuse is about power, not sex.

    The only way to prevent this happening in future is to have stringent standards and monitoring for foster carers, but that takes money and time that isn't there to spend. I doubt we can afford to exclude people from being foster carers based on sexuality (race, origin, height, gingerness) there just are not enough to go round as it is.
  19. I suggested not because it implies to the child that its circumstances are normal. OK, that starts the nature/nurture argument again.

    sussex2. A fair challenge. I don't know. I do know that most people are hetrosexual and that children do not normally know what's normal. They learn it from their surroundings. I am digressing, though.
  20. POL, I only suggested we don't exclude homosexuals etc from fostering as for kids to get into the foster care system, they don't normally come from a well adjusted background as it is.......just living with someone that doesn't belt them and feeds them on a regular basis is all most want.....if their idea of normal is daddy comes homes and beats mummy every friday night, can it be so bad if daddy1 comes home and gives daddy2 a kiss before asking them how school went and what movie they'd like to go see? I know "normal" is highly subjective, but getting over our prejudices, aren't there more pressing needs for kids in care than worrying if people are the same religion, colour, or if bumfun is their chosen bedhurdling discipline? I dont think we are trying to tell all kids in foster care that they are normal, but by implying that some sexual preferences are abnormal, where do we draw the line? I think Oppo's sister shaggers should carry a mark on their foreheads, but thats just me........

Share This Page